DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 9/29/2025. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claim 1 have been amended. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
The drawings were received on 9/29/2025. Applicant’s replacement drawings have overcome two objections, but the third drawing objection applied in the last Office Action is still maintained.
Applicant argues that Rababy fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 1 for multiple reasons. First Applicant argues that the gas hose sensor is not part of the gas hose. First the Examiner would like to point out that the gas hose is not positively recited. Regardless of this fact, the gas hose sensor is being interpreted as 74 in Rababy which can be clearly seen in Figs. 4 and 5. This is clearly not part of the gas hose. Second, Applicant argues that the visual alarm activation before full hose separation. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Applicant also argues that audible alarm activates prior to full disconnection as well. This argument is also not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Applicant also argues that Rababy fails to disclose the claimed mounting bracket because Rababy fails to disclose a compact system whereas the Applicant’s mounting bracket allows for seamless integration with an existing fuel station infrastructure. Again, this argument is also not commensurate with the scope of the claims and the current claim language does not distinguish over the current interpretation over Rababy. Lastly, Applicant argues the electrical connection system and the hose system are two clearly different systems. However, the system of Rababy operates in the same manner as Applicant’s invention does. The electrical connection portion, which includes the sensor, and the hose itself are considered two separate systems. Regardless, as stated above, the hose is not positively recited. For at least these reasons, the 102 rejection over Rababy is maintained.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have necessitated further search and/or consideration and/or revision of the rejection, and accordingly, this action must be made Final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the spring configured to retract the cord, wire, or string into the apparatus as claimed in claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rababy et al. (US 6,334,474, hereafter “Rababy”).
Regarding claim 1, Rababy discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1) configured to detect a gas hose pull away event at a gas station, comprising: a gas hose sensor (74) configured to detect when a gas hose is pulled away from a gas pump (Col. 3, lines 13-33), wherein the gas hose sensor is not part of the gas hose (the gas hose is not positively recited so this limitation is further defining functional language that the system of Rababy is at least capable of doing; alternatively, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the sensor is clearly shown and is clearly not part of the gas hose); a visual alarm configured to be activated in response to detection that the gas hose has been pulled away from the gas pump (Col. 4, lines 54-67); an audible alarm configured to be activated in response to detection that the gas hose has been pulled away from the gas pump (Col. 4, lines 54-67); a mounting bracket (72) configured to attach the apparatus to a fixed location on or proximate to the gas pump; and an electrical connection configured to provide electrical power to the apparatus (as shown in Fig. 6), wherein the electrical connection does not provide electricity to the gas hose (the gas hose is not positively recited so this limitation is further defining functional language that the system of Rababy is at least capable of doing; alternatively, as shown in Figs. 1-6; the electrical system as shown in Fig. 6 is clearly different from the gas hose).
Regarding claim 2, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the gas hose sensor includes a cord, a wire, or a string (62) that is attached to the gas hose.
Regarding claim 3, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the cord, the wire, or the string is attached to the gas hose utilizing a clamp, a tie, or a magnet (62 is tied to 56 via 58 and 60).
Regarding claim 9, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the visual alarm includes a light source. (Col. 3, lines 50-62)
Regarding claim 10, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 9, wherein the visual alarm is configured to enable and disable the light source at a first frequency. (Col. 3, lines 50-62; the system of Rababy is at least capable of performing this limitation)
Regarding claim 11, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 9, wherein the visual alarm is configured to direct light at an angle that varies with time. (Col. 3, lines 50-62; the system of Rababy is at least capable of performing this limitation)
Regarding claim 12, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the audible alarm includes a speaker. (Fig. 6; Col. 3, lines 50-62)
Regarding claim 13, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the audible alarm includes a bell. (Col. 4, lines 31-53)
Regarding claim 14, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the audible alarm includes a memory circuit configured to store audio information. (Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 15, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the audible alarm includes an amplifier (97).
Regarding claim 16, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the electrical connection is configured to connect to an alternating current (AC) power source. (Col. 4, lines 31-53)
Regarding claim 17, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the electrical connection is configured to connect to a battery power source (86).
Regarding claim 18, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising a switch (92) configured to enable the visual alarm or the audible alarm when a gas hose pull away event is detected.
Regarding claim 19, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising a processing circuit configured to enable the visual alarm or the audible alarm when a gas hose pull away event is detected. (Fig. 6)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rababy.
Regarding claim 4, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the clamp, the tie, or the magnet includes a metal material or a plastic material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the clamp, the tie, or the magnet includes a metal material or a plastic material since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a known material that is strong and durable for the intended purpose.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rababy in view of Breed et al (6,662,642, hereafter “Breed”).
Regarding claim 5, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the gas hose sensor is a wireless sensor device.
Breed teaches a wireless sensor device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the gas hose sensor of Rababy to be wireless as taught by Breed since this is combining prior art elements (wireless sensors) according to known methods to yield predictable results (wireless communication). The motivation for doing so is to provide a wireless system.
Regarding claim 6, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 5, wherein the wireless sensor device includes a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag.
Breed teaches the wireless sensor device includes a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag. (Col. 6, lines 30-44)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sensor to include RFID as taught by Breed since the equivalence of RFID and any other sensor system is recognized for their use in the sensor art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for making such an equivalent substitution would be to provide an optimal sensor system based on user defined criteria.
Regarding claim 7, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 5, wherein the wireless sensor device includes an accelerometer.
Breed teaches the wireless sensor device includes an accelerometer. (Col. 11, lines 50-60)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sensor to include an accelerometer as taught by Breed since the equivalence of an accelerometer and any other sensor system is recognized for their use in the sensor art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for making such an equivalent substitution would be to provide an optimal sensor system based on user defined criteria.
Regarding claim 8, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 5, wherein the wireless sensor device includes a proximity device.
Breed teaches the wireless sensor device includes a proximity device. (Col. 6, lines 16-29)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sensor to include a proximity device as taught by Breed since the equivalence of a proximity device and any other sensor system is recognized for their use in the sensor art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for making such an equivalent substitution would be to provide an optimal sensor system based on user defined criteria.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rababy in view of Langenohl (US 4,042,184).
Regarding claim 20, Rababy further discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, but fails to disclose a spring configured to retract the cord, wire, or string into the apparatus.
Langenohl teaches a spring (22) configured to retract the cord, wire, or string into the apparatus. (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the cord of Rababy to include a spring to maintained the cord in the retracted position as taught by Langenohl in order to provide a system which ensures that the cable is tight and retracted to help prevent accidentally tripping the alarm.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753